Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
MANOJ KUMAR GARG, RAVI CHIRANIA
Jaimal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI CHIRANIA, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. by the accused-appellants Jaimal Ram and Bhagwana Ram to challenge the impugned judgment dated 18.01.1996 passed by Session Judge, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No. 63/94 (96/91) titled as “State vs. Jaimal and Anr” whereby both the accused-appellants were convicted and sentenced which are as under:-
| S. No. | Offence U/s | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of time |
| 01. | 302/34 IPC | Life Imprisonment | Rs. 2,000/- | 2 years RI |
| 02. | 404 IPC | 3 years RI | Rs. 500/- | 6 months RI |
2. The appeal was filed in the year 1996 and before hearing, status of both the accused were called from the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned Public Prosecutor informed this Court on 24.01.2024 that both the accused are alive.
3. The brief facts as noted from the record of the learned trial court are that one Raja Ram lodged a verbal report on 22.09.1991 to SHO Police Station Dibi, District Hanumangarh on which FIR bearing No. 232/1991 was registered. The oral report, Exhibit P-1 is reproduced as under:-
4. As per the oral report the complainant found the body of deceased in the agricultural field of Hari Ram. The FIR was registered again
The convicting based solely on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions requires corroborative proof and must adhere to well-established principles regarding such evidence.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, as primarily relied upon uncorroborated extra-judicial confessions and inconsistent witness testimonies.
Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring corroboration and should be credible; reliance on insufficient evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
For a conviction based on extra-judicial confession, corroborative evidence is essential, and any substantial contradictions in testimonies undermine its reliability.
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain without breaks, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration; benefit of doubt is given to the accused when evidence is insufficient.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; reliance on circumstantial evidence requires an unbroken chain linking the accused to the crime.
Extrajudicial confession can support a conviction if credible, corroborated by other evidence, and satisfies standards for circumstantial evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
